# State v. Simpson

> Supreme Court of Louisiana · November 16, 1908 · 122 La. 309

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7166529

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE v. SIMPSON
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Louisiana
- **Decided:** November 16, 1908
- **Citations:** 122 La. 309; 47 So. 622; 1908 La. LEXIS 456
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On the merits
- **Judges:** Monroe
- **Cited by:** 6 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7166529

## Opinion text

On the Merits.
The sheriff was unwilling to accept the appellant as surety until $1,500 should have been deposited in bank to his credit; and, the money having been deposited, that fact is now made the basis of the objection that he is a mere stakeholder and has no standing in court to appeal from a judgment which has been rendered against him for the amount'. The sheriff, however, testified that he did not know whether the money was still in bank and that he was looking to the surety to satisfy the bond, and there is no evidence as to the ownership of the money deposited. Upon the face of the record, therefore, the appellant appears to have quite a lively interest in the issue presented by the appeal. The defendant, Simpson, was arrested, as we have y affidavit with having “shot and mortally wounded one Jack Talbot, who since died from the effects of the wound,” and that he ■was released on a bond for $250; that subsequently he was indicted for manslaughter and pleaded to the indictment; that the trial of the case was postponed, and that thereafter, on the suggestion of the district attorney, he was rearrested, but ordered to be released on furnishing another bond of $250, which he refused to furnish, asserting that he was entitled to his liberty on the bond already given. Upon his application for ha-beas corpus, however, this court held to the contrary, saying (inter alia):
“It is a common practice, when the indictment is returned, a true bill having been found, •for the judge to issue a bench warrant, or an order of commitment in the nature of a warrant, and to fix immediately the amount of bail precisely because the previous bond had gone .out of existence.”
Our conclusion, then, is that, as the order under which the sheriff acted in this case contemplated the taking of a bond with reference to the charge contained in the affidavit before the justice of the peace, and as the bond sued on was taken with reference to a different charge, subsequently made, by bill of information, upon which the accused was rearrested and recommitted, the sheriff was without authority either to take such bond or to release the accused, and the surety is not bound.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment appealed from, in so far as it condemns J. O. Brown, appellant herein, be annulled, avoided, and reversed, and that there be judgment in favor of said Brown, rejecting the demand here made against him.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7166529. Public record. Not legal advice.